Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman/Evidence

The Evidence phase for this case is closed.

Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go to the talk page and create an edit request.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Bradv (Talk) & Guerillero (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Worm That Turned (Talk) & AGK (Talk)

Evidence presented by Writ Keeper

Background information about mass rollback

The mass rollback tool that GS used is one of the user scripts I've written, at User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js. I rewrote it from an original script by John254 at the implicit request of Drmies some five years ago. It's undergone some revisions since then, but the basic functionality is to effectively click all of the rollback links that show up on a user's contribs page--a contribs page showing 500 edits will generate up to 500 rollbacks from a single use of the massRollback tool, depending on how many of the displayed edits are eligible for rollback. One of the changes I made, in 2015, was to add a confirmation dialog, such that it requires two clicks to proceed. In 2016, I modified that confirmation dialog to allow for custom edit summaries thst would be applied to each rollback edit; leaving the textbox blank would apply the default rollback edit summary. This script uses the API to perform the rollback action; it thus requires the rollback right, but no other right; any user with rollback permissions (which includes all admins, since rollback is part of the admin kit) can install and use it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Hhkohh

Rollback rules

The rollback tool should not usually be used to perform any revert which ought ordinarily to be explained, such as a revert of a good-faith content edit, nor should it be used in content disputes per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Rollback Hhkohh (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page per WP:ROLLBACK.
- It means the number of edits should be very large when you rollback so if the number of edits is small, should not use rollback Hhkohh (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators who persistently misuse rollback may have their administrator access revoked, although in practice such cases would require the intervention of the Arbitration Committee. per WP:ROLLBACK Hhkohh (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Misuse of rollback may lead to the removal of administrator privileges. per WP:ADMINGUIDE/R Hhkohh (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See also: #Evidence presented by Beyond My Ken section Hhkohh (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Script

massRollback – Rollback all edits made by a particular user. Proceed with caution! per WP:ADMINGUIDE/R Hhkohh (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meatbot

Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that involve errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked per WP:MEATBOT Hhkohh (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WR227

GiantSnowman blocked WR227 (talk · contribs) several times and mass rollback this user edit, but this user mostly update stats in good faith, but now was unblocked by Galobtter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Hhkohh (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about GS evidence Although the block was reviewed by Vanjagenije (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), but why was WR227 unblocked now? I concerned evidence submitted by GS seems very low Hhkohh (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

9 December 2018 reverts

Although GS has reverted these rollbacks himself and this issue was issued, but just note like this then self revert (during Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#User:GiantSnowman bot-assisted rollback of good-faith edits).

Also:
[1] and [2]
[3] and [4]
[5] and [6]
[7] and [8]
[9] then [10] (original content is supported by the existing source listed in the article)

These edits were raised in ANI: Sourced, unreverted. Sourced, unreverted. Sourced, unreverted. Sourced, unreverted and so on (See also Fram evidence section)
Feel free to add if I missed some Hhkohh (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on GS evidence every edits are unsourced? Why did you rollback yourself again? Some are already cited source in articles, just source update, so IP did these update. Hhkohh (talk) 05:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veryproicelandic

See contributions (permanent link) although some were self-reverted during ANI Hhkohh (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given above, Veryproicelandic (talk · contribs) submit edit summary during edit but GS blindly mass rollback and gave them warning initially Hhkohh (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3 December 2018 revert

[11]: editor submit a summary but GS still rollback Hhkohh (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstands

the ability to communicate with others and present rationales when questioned by others. A person should be able to collaborate with other editors, defend their editing when asked to do so, and be willing to abide by consensus per WP:CIR
- But GS show his misunderstanding in his own evidence, so he fails WP:CIR Hhkohh (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by GiantSnowman

I can do no more than repeat what I said at ANI and the ARBCOM case page. All I will say is that please do not doubt that my edits have all genuinely been in an attempt to improve Wikipedia and in a belief that they were in accordance with policy. Giant Snowman 09:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

In relation to rollback, I acknowledge that I have previously used the massrollback script to revert editors, and that has sometimes caught up good faith edits and editors. However my use of rollback is allowed by #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE - "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". #5 of ROLLBACKUSE appears to be linked to WP:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Rollback, which states that "rollback may be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually. In such instances, it is expected that an explanation will be provided in an appropriate location, such as at a relevant talk page". I interpreted that as including the mass addition of unsourced content, particularly to BLPs. I removed the rollback script on 10 December.

Have I warned & reverted editors who repeatedly added unsourced content? Yes, in line with WP:BLP ("We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing") and WP:BURDEN ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution").

Unsourced content is a major problem in the area I edit (soccer); I am not the only user or admin to act in this way, out of necessity. Incorrect stats, incomplete updates (causing confusion), straight-out vandalism... I invite ARBCOM to seek input from members of WP:FOOTBALL in relation to this. This is also confirmed by non-project members, eg @Ymblanter: here. Giant Snowman 09:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Block of WR227

This is an editor with a long history of adding unsourced content to BLPs, including previous blocks. In the run-up to the block in question, I gave them a final warning on 3 December in relation to this edit, where they removed sourced content. Later that day I then gave them another final warning in relation to this edit, where they used a misleading edit summary to add unsourced material (the source cited in the edit summary was not present in the article). I then blocked them on 6 December after this, where they did the exact same thing. The block was reviewed by @Vanjagenije: and upheld.

The block was in-line with WP:BLP - "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing".

Was I WP:INVOLVED? I don't think so - "one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I was not in dispute with the editor over content; I was merely (in my mind) enforcing BLP policy. However, in hindsight (a beautiful thing), I should have taken a step back and raised the issue at eg ANI. I have already committed to do so in the future should I retain the tools. Giant Snowman 09:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hhkohh

This user asks for help from me just last week dealing with socks (after the ANI thread) but now suddenly thinks I can't be trusted to be an admin? More fool them. Giant Snowman 11:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply highlighting edits which were part of known mass rollbacks - which I have already acknowledged caught up 'good' edits.

Jamieroot11 (talk · contribs) was reverted because of edits like this and then this whereby he added two different sets of figures to the infobox, using the same 'canned' edit summary every time, making it appear like vandalism.
62.149.77.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - every single one of their edits was unsourced and unexplained
Veryproicelandic (talk · contribs) - as explained at ANI, this user was mass removing inboxes from articles and also using a seemingly misleading edit summary (referring to 'flags' rather than 'maintenance tags'). I thought they were vandalising. It was a terrible misunderstanding.

Happy to explain any more. Giant Snowman 12:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fram

Once again, misrepresenting the truth:

Caitlinwebb3 (talk · contribs) was reverted for adding factually incorrect information to articles eg this and this and had been previously blocked by @Mattythewhite: for the same thing, after numerous warnings from numerous editors.
Cipow (talk · contribs) was reverted for adding unsourced material eg this.
Footballinbelgium (talk · contribs) was reverted for adding unsourced material like this (they said 1.88m, Soccerway says 1.82m) - they had been warned numerous times and had been before ANI twice in less than 6 months.
Davidinstockholm (talk · contribs) was reverted for unsourced content, including this. They've been warned multiple times about this and continue to add unsourced content (@Mattythewhite: has recently issued final warnings again)
70.21.191.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - yes I reverted and warned for this, they removed valid references from the article
Fodbold-fan (talk · contribs) - like WR227, who I've already covered, they have a long history of repeatedly adding unsourced content to articles. They were reverted, warned, and blocked (for the 5th time, albeit 3 of this blocks are from me).
89.211.190.236 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked for repeatedly adding unsourced content like this and this
121.212.176.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - blocked (for the second time) for repeated vandalism and unsourced content; they'd been issued a final warning 3 days prior to my block. As Ymblanter says, the kinds of edits the IP made are rife in this area and a real problem. In the edit highlighted by Fram, the IP was seemingly changing sourced content. It was fair to revert and view as vandalism.

In relation to 'promises', as already explained at ANI - after the issue was raised I said I would be more careful, I made some more reverts which I felt were in-line with WP:ROLLBACKUSE and which others agreed, I then made more reverts which I again thought were in-line with ROLLBACKUSE but others disagreed and that's when I uninstalled the script. Giant Snowman 16:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saying I don't understand or change is absolute nonsense. I have dealt with the concerns raised and already changed editing habits. Saying "GS has no problems with edits where they add the source in the edit summary, but not in the article" is nonsense. Using an edit summary to explain that the source is already present is absolutely fine (and I do it myself. Not adding a source or confirming in any way, shape or form what source is being used is not acceptable. That is my issue. I am simply trying to enforce policies (BLP and BURDEN) which require material to be sourced, and that source to be added/noted by whichever editor is adding the information. Giant Snowman 16:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to quote WP:BLP (one of our mostimportant policies) again seeing as Fram either hasn't read it or is deliberately ignoring it - "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" (my emphasis) and if not it should be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Then, "users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". That is all that I have been doing. Giant Snowman 18:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Philippe Sandler - the infobox clearly states 'league stats only' - the edit was not constructive, hence why it was undone. A level 1 warning template was appropriate. Giant Snowman 08:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Fish and karate

Your timeline/interpretation is not quite correct. The edits on 6 December raised by Fram here were not mass rollback. It was 2 manual rollbacks (which, again, I thought were in line with ROLLBACKUSE and which were supported by other editors at ANI). You've also ignored the fact that I voluntarily removed the mass rollback script on 10 December, after I took on board concerns raised by others. Saying WP:IDHT is not fair/accurate. Have there been any concerning incidents regarding rollback as a whole since? Giant Snowman 10:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns were raised about mass rollback on the 4th; I listened and said I'd be more careful. I made edits I thought were in line with ROLLBACKUSE on 9th, concerns were raised, I removed the tool. How is that not listening? The irony of this case is that I am continually being accused of not AGFing, yet nobody will AGF with me. You are all out for blood. Giant Snowman 11:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me make it clear - I acknowledge that some use of mass rollback, whilst I thought it was in-line with guidance, was inappropriate (hence why I self-reverted, apologised, and removed the tool) and that whilst I don't think the blocks were INVOLVED I probably should have stepped back and raised at ANI or similar, which I have already said I will do in the future. PS Saying "I want to help" and "I don't want you de-mopped" are great and appreciated; sarcastic comments like "no you haven't abused the mass rollback tool since uninstalling it" are less so. Giant Snowman 11:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Valenciano

Ronan Hughes edit - vandalism reverted. Would any other editor patrolling have done any different? No.
Paul Onuachu - unsourced edit undone. That editor has been around since 2009, they should know better. The source they have since added is problematic; it confirms the team has won the trophy, but not the player (as in soccer that is not automatic). Giant Snowman 18:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby Burns - so I confused two teams with very similar names? Where's your AGF? And for the record I rollbacked the editor because they introduced bogus stats to the infobox, as you know given your 'partial revert' which didn't restore the IP's stats...you'll also notice that article has been the subject of plenty of vandalism recently, such as this. Giant Snowman 14:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cipow

I did a check of a few, they weren't referenced, and I assumed (in error) that they were all the same. You are right, I should have checked more and I should not have used mass rollback for that. Apologies. However, saying "All changes are 100% accurate, unfortunately there isn't a lot of sources" isn't good enough as it doesn't comply with our requirements for verifiability. Giant Snowman 08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Legacypac

As I explained on the talk page before you posted this as 'evidence', it was the rollback of a clear DUCK sock of a blocked editor. Giant Snowman 08:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response to UninvitedCompany

Yes, there will be many examples of me using mass rollback and reverting good faith edits (yes, including talk page posts - because the script reverts every edit), such as addition of unsourced content about BLPs which turned out to be correct or good-faith removals of infoboxes (as in the Veryproicelandic example). As I have stated many, many times, I thought that such use was allowed per #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE. I was told at ANI it was not, I apologised and self-reverted, I stopped using it, and I uninstalled the script. Are there ongoing problems? No. The IP I rollbacked yesterday was a DUCK sock, allowed under #4 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE and per WP:BLOCKEVASION ("Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule") and WP:DENY. I raised those edits on the talk page here as soon as I did them, to explain. Giant Snowman 08:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further additions to Ymblanter and Iridescent's points

Both editors are correct - given the popularity of soccerball, the number of articles on Wikipedia related to it, and the tribalism of fans, it is a popular and easy target for vandals and overkeen editors. For clubs, that includes making up player names and kits; for players it's not just fake stats (or, frequently, incomplete updates which can create havoc, as another editor comes along, doesn't realise the stats have been updated because the date parameter is showing an old date, and updates it againb...), we also see heights being changed, and also 'current team' being changed, especially in the English football transfer window (January 2019, watch this space) where rumours abound. Anybody active at RFPP/AIV/ANI will have seen problems reported with countless football-related articles. I saw one editor active at WP:FOOTBALL describe our work as firefighting, and that's what it feels like it sometimes. That is why a number of editors (myself inclued) have little tolerance for editors making edits without clear, explicit sourcing. Giant Snowman 11:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A recent example to show this - over the course of the past few days Dominic Solanke was linked in the press with a transfer to Crystal Palace; an IP updated the article to show the move completing - even though it never actually completed, and he has now been linked with a transfer to a different club instead... (watch this space!) The edit was reverted by @Mattythewhite:, another admin active at WP:FOOTBALL. This type of addition of incorrect content by overeager fans (usually editing as IPs) is far too frequent in the world of soccer articles. Given the transfer window has just opened (basically the only time clubs can acquire players until the summer) for the next month, there will be an upsurge of similar edits across many, many articles. Giant Snowman 15:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the mess we have to deal with - I'd invite ARBCOM to review the mess that is the Dominic Solanke edit history just from today, given his recent transfer, to get a small flavour of what we're dealing with. Transfer added without a source; source then added by a different user; then some vandalism; more vandalism; more vandalimsm; more vandalism; for a change some unsourced content (the source doesn't mention the '£25 million bonus/target' aspect - that's just speculation]; followed by more vandalism. All that in 1 hour! Giant Snowman 17:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: - yes, the transfer window is open for January. My watchlist is awash with vandalism, rumours presentd as fact, and completed deals added without adequate sourcing. For those who don't know, many countries limit when clubs can buy/sell players - twice a year (January and then again in the summer) - a 'transfer window'. These are particularly prevalent times for disruption. Giant Snowman 12:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Timothy Weah edit history, involving transfer rumours, associated vandalism, and premature/unsourced information being added. Giant Snowman 10:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proving a negative

It's quite difficult to prove a negative, ie show that I understand how stuff works etc. I've already acknowledged that my use of mass rollback was inappropriate in relation to a few users, although (again) at the time I thought it was all kosher and inline with WP:ROLLBACKUSE. However I'll try, with examples from just before the ANI thread (so late November/early December):

I haven't used rollback indiscriminately - I have always 'undone' wherever possible (see eg this and this and this);
I've used rollback to remove clear vandalism (see eg this and this and this);
In relation to BITE, I have tried to welcome users (see eg this)

I'd also be interested in users presenting diffs since this ARBCOM case started showing me misusing rollback.

I have been making a conscious effort over the past few weeks to source (1, 2 etc.) the unsourced additions of other users (1, 2 etc.) wherever possible (rather than just removing them) and leave notes rather than warnings; I'm sure cynics will say it's "too little too late" or I'm just doing it while being scrutinised by ARBCOM, but I assure you it's a permanent change in attitude. However, it's by no means a new way of editing - see this IP adding content without a reference followed by me finding and adding the supporting reference from 2 years ago. Giant Snowman 15:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Fram

I hope ARBCOM take into account Fram's comments/attitude/behaviour at ANI and here, and also edits like this and this which are uncivil and show an alarming lack of AGF, which I find particularly funny given that is precisely what they have accused me of. I review DYK every time it is updated and will GNOME the articles (eg 1, 2, 3) and have done for years - accusing me of following them to DYK is outrageous bad faith. Giant Snowman 16:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Bring back Daz Sampson

Any evidence at all that "scores of potentially decent editors have been turned off"? The named editors (WR227, Veryproicelandic, Caitlinwebb3, Cipow, Jamieroot11, Footballinbelgium, Davidstockholm) have all edited since my interactions with them, and I have reason to believe one of the IPs has now registered an account (not disclosing details here in spirit of OUTing; happy to email ARBCOM with details if they deem it necessary). Giant Snowman 17:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Alfie

No, I am not using Mass Rollback - alleging I am is absolutely preposterous. As stated on the Evidence talk page, I manually reviewed every edit before manually editing; most edits were rollbacked in line with #5 of ROLLBACKUSE (malfunctioning bot), some were undone when rollback would not have been appropriate. Giant Snowman 15:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hmlarson

I'm sorry, how on earth is me using normal deltion processes (AFD) to nominate articles of questionable notability for deletion (after many similar articles had been deleted via PROD and also at other AFDs) in any way an abuse of power or similar?! I really do despair sometimes. Giant Snowman 19:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reflection and summary

TLDR: I'm sorry; at the time I thought my conduct was OK but I realise now it wasn't. I've long stopped and I hope I show I've changed for the better.

Long version: I've taken some time to have a re-read of the comments at ANI and here, and re-read some policies, in preparation for the Evidence phase closing shortly.

I acknowledge that my historical hardline approach to enforcing BLP/BURDEN has been unduly harsh, and that my use of mass rollback in some cases to try and 'police' it (for want of a better word) was, in hindsight, completely inappropriate. I can also see why some of my blocks have raised concerns of being INVOLVED.

However, as I have said, at the time, I obviously thought it was in-line with ROLLBACKUSE. I now know it was not (thought I am still not 100% was #5 of ROLLBACKUSE is for in relation to "misguided editors"). I assure you have not been deliberately or maliciously abusing tools or scripts. I did not block editors because I was in dispute with them; I blocked them whilst acting (in my mind at least) "purely in an administrative role", because they continued to, for example, edit disruptively by repeatedly adding content to BLPs without adequate sourcing, despite multiple warnings. I am a long-term and very active editor; I have been in many disputes with many editors. Nobody has (nor will) be able to find me blocking another editor in a content dispute, for example.

I have always acted with the benefit of Wikipedia in my mind. As TonyBallioni said, "we are not talking about someone who has been repeatedly warned and who was frequently at noticeboards for bad conduct, but someone who apparently had been doing this for years, who never had it brought up to them, and who had blocks reviewed by other admins that were upheld." I think that is the fairest summary I have seen (though I have not been using Mass Rollback for years; it was only added in March 2018, so about 9 months or so.)

Such behaviour probably arises from historical nuisances such as Zombie433 (talk · contribs), who had a long history of adding dubious unsourced material to articles, and then incessant socking after he was indeffed, before being eventually banned. As shown on the talk page and in the evidence of myself and others, football-related articles are subject to lots of disruption, and given the number of articles it can be quite easy for vandalism to go unnoticed. At times, trying to keep football-related articles to an acceptable standard has been an uphill struggle. I'm not trying to justify my past behaviour; I'm simply trying to explain it.

I hope my evidence shows that I have stopped using rollback other than in clear cases of vandalism/socking (and even then not always), and that I made a conscious effort to try and verify unsourced material rather than reverting it straight away. I have already said (should I retain the tools) that I will raise seeming good-faith editors who persist in adding unsourced content at ANI, rather than blocking them myself, to avoid any possible suggestion of being INVOLVED. I've stepped away from 'policing' and been concentrating more on content creation, with 2 DYKs since this case started! I am also trying to be less BITEy with editors who might not know the standards expected of them here, although none of the named editors I have had run-ins with have stopped editing, and at least one IP has since registered an account, so perhaps I'm not as scary as I'm being made out to be...

I have found this entire process incredibly difficult and stressful, and the conduct of others towards me has been disappointing. The irony of this case is that I have been repeatedly accused of not AGFing, and yet have received nothing but bad faith accusations from many. Could this have been adequately dealt with at ANI? Yes, if I had responded properly quicker and grasped the situation better; if the discussion hadn't been closed so soon (giving the appearance of admins defending one another); and if the angry mob had calmed down a little and not made me go into 'Defence Mode'. However, coming to ARBCOM has allowed me to reflect on the situation in a way which ANI perhaps didn't, so perhaps it's been useful for that.

I hope I have adequately shown that I have seriously taken on board the concerns raised by the community and changed my behaviour for the better. I deserve a bollocking for past conduct and a warning about future conduct; I do not feel that I deserve to be desysopped. If I am I will have to think long and hard about my future here. Giant Snowman 10:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Fram

(Trimmed to meet requirements, previous version can be read here)

GiantSnowman misused rollback

416 reverts of edits by User:Veryproicelandic [12]. The "evidence" of vandalism was that Veryproicelandic had removed a few very short infoboxes from articles, as they wouldn't need or get an infobox on most normal articles. Apparently the football project has a rule that every football biography must have an infobox, and removing this is thus vandalism.
5 reverts of edits by User:Caitlinwebb3, who then gets blocked for a week by GS.
20-odd rollbacks of edits by User:Cipow. The excuse by GS for rollbacking all their recent edits (like here is "It's very simply - you need to provide reliable sources for every edit, and you need to use WP:EDITSUMMARIES to explain your edits. Doing that will avoid further reverts. Giant Snowman 08:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)" Neither is policy here, not justification for reverts.[reply]
User:Jamieroot11, 32 rollbacks, with vandalism warning, only to have to remove the warning and apologise, while still blaming the editor because they didn't use a good enough edit summary[13]. In reality, they were updating stats in the infobox with the edit summary "Updating bio stats"[14], so it seems strange to blame thee edit summary for any confusion.
GS rollbacked some 40 edits by User:Footballinbelgium and gave them a final warning for adding unsourced content. Too bad that the things they added were to the infobox (where everything or nearly everything is unsourced) and were correct, e.g. Sam Valcke [15] really is 1m88cm according to Soccerway, and Marius Noubissi really is 1m80cm according to The final ball, in both cases sources already present in the article.
The batch of 30 rollbacks in 1 minute to edits by User:Davidstockholm also was incorrect (e.g. here) and GS rollbacked him with a final warning anyway.

GiantSnowman uses vandal warnings for non-vandal edits

Example: [16] for this, which was rollbacked by GS but reinstated by GS nearly identical 10 minutes later[17] without apology or retraction of the final vandal warning.

Yesterday, an IP (presumably a new editor, though one can't be sure of course) noted that Philippe Sandler made his debut for Manchester City[18], and updated the infobox accordingly[19]. It is nearly impossible to know for a newbie that cup appearances shouldn't be added to the infobox though, and only domestic league matches count. GS reverted this change with a correct edit summary[20]. For some reason, they also left a level 1 vandal warning on the IP talk page though, "welcoming" this new editor with the message that their constructive, correct edit (not "correct" for our internal, complex rules, but correct to the world) was undone because "they did not appear constructive".[21]. Fram (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman blocks constructive editors

User:Caitlinwebb3 gets blocked for a week for not updating the timestamp parameter when they (correctly!) update statistics in three articles:[22][23][24].
User:Fodbold-fan (see the AN discussion)
User:WR227 (see the AN discussion)
User:89.211.190.236 (see the case request for details)
User:121.212.176.113 blocked for one week on 7 October for "Persistent addition of unsourced content". They made one edit on 7 October before the block, [25]. Here, they changed an incorrect "sourced" value to the actual value given in the source directly after the stated fact. So not "unsourced content" at all, but the correction of an error (no, a BLP VIOLATION to stay in GS speak). Which policy allows the blocking of an editor who makes a sourced correction? On the other hand, you normally have no problem with blocking people who put such errors in articles[26].. Fram (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

During this evidence phase

User:107.77.173.7 was getting reverted and warned for making very poor edits (probably with good intentions, but really rather destrcutive). After a final warning on 13.15 20 December, they make one more edit, [27]. While perhaps not made in the way an experienced editor would make it, this is a perfectly correct edit (factually), an attempt to improve the encyclopedia by updating outdated information. Instead, they get rollbacked and blocked for a week by GS the next minute. When I raise this block at the talk page of this evidence section, they maintain " I simply saw an editor making a large number of vandalism edits and warnings in a very short period of time continue to edit in that way. Would any other admin acted in any other way? I doubt it.", basically refusing to even consider that their block may have been hasty or misguided, or to consider that, contrary to what they say, the IP was not continuing to "edit in that way" but instead had changed their approach after the final warning (which, after all, is the purpose of a final warning, otherwise we could just as well block immediately). If they can't even be bothered to be extra careful during an ArbCom case about these kind of actions... Fram (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman shows no understanding or change

I was going to show evidence from the AN discussion, but just read his "evidence" below:

"[..] that has sometimes caught up good faith edits and editors. However my use of rollback is allowed by #5 of WP:ROLLBACKUSE" It was explained, at length, that their interpretation of #5 and their application of it were wildly at odds, but they still don't recognise this. The rule is "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia", but they used it to rollback edits which were clearly helpful, or where one or two helpful but imperfect edits were included in a long series of helpful edits.

About the 3 month block for WR227, universally condemned at the AN discussion and overturned: "Later that day I then gave them another final warning in relation to this edit, where they used a misleading edit summary to add unsourced material (the source cited in the edit summary was not present in the article). I then blocked them on 6 December after this, where they did the exact same thing. The block was reviewed by @Vanjagenije: and upheld." It wasn't a "misleading edit summary" and "unsourced material" but a very minor mistake: the 2 edits before and the 2 afterwards had the exact same edit summary, and did include the source. On the 6th, they made 25 edits with the "Updated biography, career and stats per Worldfootball" summary on 6 December; one of these did not include the actual source (but was correct!), and this leads to a rollback (individual rollback, not mass rollback here) and a 3 month block. Note how GS tried to spin this the other way, "The fact that some of his other edits were sourced is irrelevant." 24 sourced in summary and article, one sourced in summary but not in article...

The hypocrisy of it all is that GS has no problems with edits where they add the source in the edit summary, but not in the article, e.g. here or here.

GiantSnowman applies policy completely different for his own edits vs. those by everyone else

Here GS makes it abundantly clear that the policies he applies to the extremes for others, don't apply to his own edits. GS adds three facts to an infobox, but only adds the source to one of them (no problem there). Another editor (who also contributed a lot to that page) adds a fourth fact from the same source, but doesn't explicitly add the source (just like with 2 of the 3 facts GS added). GS now claims that: "PS it was unsourced, WP:BURDEN requires an in-line citation, where was the in-line citation for height? Oh there wasn't one til I added it. ", which is not what BURDEN says, and is not what GS applies to his own edits. Fram (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Ymblanter

Articles related to associated football are subject to massive disruption

To illustrate the statement I made in the initial discussion, this is a typical example, which I have found today. I encounter these examples in my role as administrator (typically working at WP:RFPP) on a regular, almost daily, basis. This article: Guga (footballer, born 1998) was edited by a newly registered user and two IPs during two last days. The user changed the place of birth of the subject of the article without providing a new source. [28] Both IPs inserted unsourced rumors that the subject has changed the club (apparently, the agreement has not been signed, and the information should not have been in the article). Additionally, the first IP changed the club name in an improper place [29]. All these edits were reverted and a protection request was filed. I reacted to the request and semi-protected the article. As I said, this is very typical, and rumors get routinely inserted into articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is another one I have seen at RFPP today and protected for a week: Oliver Burke. Apparently, transfer rumors caused a wave of vandalism and non-constructive editing today. Again, I was not looking for this article and I was not patrolling association football articles, it just popped up at WP:RFPP since someone asked to apply protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One more, also from RFPP, with a bunch of rumours inserted today with a high intensity: Kalidou Koulibaly. I assume the European transfer window has been opened.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First closure of the thread

Since I was added as a party, I need to repeat here what I said in the initial discussion. I do believe that AN/ANI threads which develop non-constructively should be closed or partially closed by a non-involved user. In this case I was not involved. I estimated that a number of users in the thread by the time I closed it made statements which are in contrast with our policy of assuming good faith. At the time, it also looked like the issue was resolved, which I indeed made clear in my statement. However, I felt that there was possibly room for discussing the issue constructively, and therefore left the subthread on the rollback open [30] and directed there users who might had some constructive suggestions. As I said earlier, this had nothing to do with the fact that GS is admin. I would have closed the thread about a user with a history of constructive contribution, be it admin or not, if assumption of bad faith would start to overshadow the factual findings of fact. It is a bit difficult to search through archives, but this is of an example of a thread, though of a very different nature, which I closed about the same time. The thread was about a non-admin, and at the time I closed it I did not know it was open by a sock.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that I was included with a specific comment: Were the community's concerns resolved by the point of that closure? Was closing the thread a fair reflection of the consensus emerging?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at the time I saw that GS already admitted that what they have done was wrong, which is usually sufficient to resolve the issue, and the rest of the thread was more or less a championship in assuming bad faith (usually mentions of super-Mario effect are a good indicator that the discussion did not take the most constructive way). I thought closing the main thread while leaving the subthread open will channel the constructive efforts (if needed ) to the subthread and will stop non-constructive discussion in the main thread. In this sense, closing of the main thread was not meant to be a reflection of the consensus emerging. It was meant to reduce drama and to channel consensus building, if needed, to a dedicated venue. However, in the hindsight, whereas it indeed worked like I thought - users started making specific statements and suggestions rather than continuing mutual accusations - the issue turned out more complex than I could imagine, and indeed many users thought than my closing of the main thread was an attempt "to protect a fellow admin" which did not help. I do not think in the future I will attempt closing any threads in a similar situation, before the discussion stops completely, unless clearly disruptive, e.g. opened by a sock. Whereas the problem I wanted to solve is real, the solution probably caused too much collateral damage.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was alleged by MrX that I closed the discussion in which I commented let me point point out that this is incorrect. I did not comment in the part I closed, and my comment in the other part did not address (and did not mean to address) the substance of the issue, it was merely a technical remark.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC) Now MrX corrected their statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the additional evidence by Legacypac, I believe my explanations above address their concerns. In addition, this is not my responsibility to open an arbitration case, and I do not remember them approaching me to ask for example to reopen the thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Levivich

The Wikipedia Welcome: Blocked on 2nd day

VT = VanTong18 (talk · contribs), GS = GiantSnowman (talk · contribs), SF = Snowflake91 (talk · contribs)

Date	User	Page	Action
22 Nov 23:32	VT	@ Antoine Hey (Hey)	+1,191 bytes of content, VT's first edit, w/two sources (article & Twitter)
23:45	VT	@ Park Hang-seo (Park)	+131b VT's second edit
23 Nov 00:12	VT	@ Park	+726 of content, wikilinked but not sourced, w/ two wp:promo phrases, otherwise noncontroversial
7:48	GS	@ Hey	-1,191 undoes VT w/edit summary "not in sources given" ~~(Ed: The content was clearly stated in the sources given. - Levivich (talk))~~
7:48	GS	@ Park	-857 revert/rollback VT, no summ
7:49	GS	@ VT's talk page	posts welcome template
7:49	GS	@ talk	posts warning template linking WP:OR & WP:SYNTH
10:16	VT	@ Park	+856 restore text w/summ "This is a translation from another wiki page. Do not undo"
10:20	VT	@ talk	"...add a specific part or a source but please don't erase the whole thing as it's factual."
10:38	SF	@ Park	-856 undoes VT, no summ, nothing posted to VT's talk page
10:45	VT	@ Hey	+1,508b w/ summ "Additional source was added"
11:08	VT	@ Park	+1,941 "...section now has several reliable sources. Please do not undo again..."
11:23	SF	@ Park	-65 edits VT's edit to rmv WP:PROMO language, leaving the remainder
11:25	VT	@ talk	(rmv "follow me")
12:06	GS	@ Hey	-1,508 undo VT w/summ "not in sources given" (Ed: At this point, the content was clearly stated in the sources given. - Levivich (talk))
12:07	GS	@ talk	uw-unsourced4 warning template linking to Hey w/ summ "final warning, then..."
12:14	GS	@ Park	-737 of preexisting content not by VT, w/ summ "unref"
12:14	GS	@ Park	-178 of content by VT w/ summ "unref"
20:57	VT	@ talk	"It was all sourced please don't make up lies"
21:04	VT	@ Park	+1,317 w/summ "Added a source and restored content deleted by a spammer"
21:07	VT	@ Hey	+1,508 replaces text w/summ "It's all in the sources. Add more sources if you want but do not undo"
21:14	VT	@ Hey	+237 adds add'l source w/summ "Additional Source Added for Proof"
21:19	VT	@ talk	"...please do not undo the whole thing as it's all backed up by sources. I have suspicions about your neutrality in this matter..."
21:31	VT	@ talk	"You're one undo away from violating the Three revert rule..."
21:57	SF	@ Park	+11
22:01	SF	@ Park	+2
22:03	SF	@ Park	-22
24 Nov 10:30	GS	@ Hey	-1,745 revert VT, No summ.
24 Nov 10:31 GS blocked VT
10:33	GS	@ talk	Blocked: "You have been repeatedly reverted and warned about adding unsourced and poorly referenced content, and about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You have continued to edit disruptively." (Ed: Not an accurate statement. - Levivich (talk))
10:35	GS	@ Hey	replaces 1,214 out of 1,745 of VT's bytes with summ "this is valid - the Twitter page is not" (Ed: After* the block! - Levivich (talk))*
10:36	GS	@ talk	"Your wording is poor (now rectified) and your attempt to say that Hey was criticised by Vietnamese fans by using Twitter is simply not acceptable (removed)."
10:43	GS	@ Park	-783 (same as 23 Nov 12:14) w/summ "unref"
10:44	GS	@ talk	"On [Park] you have re-added unsourced content."
2 Dec 9:22	VT	@ talk	deletes talk, except for welcome template
2 Dec 9:55	VT	@ Park	+1,736 restoring material & adding references

VT has not edited since. Levivich (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Beyond My Ken

Since the "Rollback rules" evidence presented above by User:Hhkohh is confusing to me, I'd like to put the entire text of WP:ROLLBACKUSE into evidence verbatim. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

When to use rollback

Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected. Rollback may be used:

To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
To revert edits in your own user pages
To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
To revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that you supply an explanation in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page^[1]

Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning.

The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.

As with other methods of reverting, when using rollback to restore text to a page, ensure that the text restored does not violate Wikipedia policies.

Administrators may revoke the rollback privilege or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used. However, they should allow the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action – there may be justification of which the administrator is not aware (such as reversion of a banned user). Similarly, editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war. Administrators who persistently misuse rollback may have their administrator access revoked, although in practice such cases would require the intervention of the Arbitration Committee.

References

^ See also WP:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Rollback.

Evidence presented by Fish and karate

GiantSnowman paid lip service to concerns

(reposted with some tweaks from here:

After the initial concerns were raised on 4 December by Uninvited Company at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive998#User:GiantSnowman_bot-assisted_rollback_of_good-faith_edits:

GiantSnowman said "I'll also be more careful about use of 'mass rollback' in future" (5 Dec)
GiantSnowman said "I've already said I'll be more careful in my use of it" (5 Dec)
GiantSnowman said "I'll definitely be using it far more carefully/sparingly" (5 Dec)
GiantSnowman said "I don't know how many more times I can say "sorry, I'll be more careful in future" before people start listening" (5 Dec)
GiantSnowman said that "I'll be far more careful about using (mass rollback) in "greyer" areas" (5 Dec)

Despite all these assurances, the next day, 6 December, Fram raised concerns about further misuse of rollback (link)

GiantSnowman said that "Trying to claim that I'm rollbacking editors willy-nilly is absolutely false" (6 Dec)
GiantSnowman said "I have taken on board everything that was said in the previous discussion" (6 Dec)
GiantSnowman said he was "genuinely committed to being more careful, given that my reverts have sometimes caught up valid edits" (6 Dec)

Three days later, on 9 December, it happened again, with Uninvited Company raising concerns about further misuse of rollback (so linked).

The concern for me is that there was a resounding (and almost unanimous) response from editors agreeing that how GS was using mass rollback was not correct. And GS took great pains to iterate repeatedly that all concerns were being taken on board and he would change his behaviour. The above diffs are not the only examples, just a selection; there's plenty more within the parent thread. And yet GS promptly resumed doing what he was doing with no change in approach. Not once but twice. It suggests to this reader, at least, that the apologies and pledges to change were just platitudes. This is classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour and a concerning attitude for an administrator. I won't cover the blocking, other editors have already evidenced this. Fish+Karate 10:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Yes, you are correct; after three instances of not listening to feedback and continuing to misuse the mass rollback tool, you did remove the tool from your userspace. I can confirm that since you removed the mass rollback tool you have not misused the mass rollback tool. Which is, perhaps, not surprising, but we take our positives where we can get them. Fish+Karate 11:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I'm out for you listening to feedback and becoming a better administrator and editor, rather than being stubborn and not taking on board reasonable criticism. I hope you recall that throughout the initial thread I tried very hard to be fair; I am not out for blood and I don't want you desysopped, but it is clear you still don't think you've done anything significantly wrong. And that is always a worry. Fish+Karate 11:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Valenciano

Giant Snowman seems unwilling/unable to change

GS asks Fish and karate if there has been any misuse of rollback since 10 December. The answer to that is yes. I will briefly summarise what I said in the case request here. On Monday 17th, GS rolled back this good faith edit by a new ip then slapped the ip with an instant level 2 vandalism warning. Basically the ip was just doing the equivalent of adding plain text i.e. (age 20) to an article, not an improvement since the info will date, but certainly not vandalism at all, let alone vandalism that would merit a level 2 warning. That's a textbook example of misuse of rollback , seasoned with a heavy dose of WP:BITE.

GS' heavy handed approach doesn't only extend to newbies, it also applies to existing editors. 14 December there he is again, slapping a level 2 warning on Rupert1904, a long term productive editor because that editor added correct information to Paul_Onuachu. Rather than simply source it himself (not hard to find a source for the champions of Denmark, hardly an obscure subject) and drop a polite note, not a template, GS seems to think the best way is to revert the correct info and jump to level 2 warnings, which can achieve nothing other than antagonising editors, something which seems to be nothing new with editors asking back in 2014 if the warnings are necessary rather than GS just asking for cites or supplying them for uncontroversial info. Is RTB (Revert. Threaten. Block.) really the best way to deal with good faith contributors?

YMBlanter is entirely correct that there can be problems with edits to football related articles, but surely the best solution to that is to have more editors watching the articles? If GS persists on his current path, it's entirely possible those editors will give up in frustration, especially if their first edits are greeted with level 2 warnings. Valenciano (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GS adds incorrect info, bites new i.p. who tries to correct

Another with same m.o.. GS adds to a footballer that he played youth football for "Lisburn Distillery", sourcing it to a ref that actually says he played for Lisburn Youth. A different team. Ok to make that mistake but when an ip tries to correct it, not ok to misuse rollback to restore incorrect info, nor to give the ip level 2 vandalism warning. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman, this edit is blatantly not vandalism. It looks like an attempt by a new user on a mobile to add the player's age (20 years old would indeed be his age) misunderstanding what the df= parameter is for. Yet you automatically assume bad faith and based on what? Doesn't the fact that the user did it on 15 December 2018, which was the player's 20th birthday give a pretty clear indication of their motive? It is a good faith test edit at the very, very worst. Would other editors have done differently? Yes, they'd have reverted (not rolled back) with an explanation in the edit summary and they'd have welcomed the user, again with an explanation of what the parameters are for. Speaking to people rather than shouting at them almost always produces better results. Valenciano (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman on the Bobby Burns case, I could have said that it was strange that someone assumed that a UK town of over 70,000 people only had a single football team named after it. I didn't. I said it was ok that you confused it. However, it seems strange that you ask for good faith when you consistently show so little of it to our newer editors trying to improve the encyclopedia. Also, the stats weren't "bogus" as you claim. I just googled Bobby Burns Knockbreda and the second ref that comes up states that he did indeed score 8 goals in 8 games exactly as the ip added. Presumably, the Glenavon stats added included cup competitions, an obvious newbie mistake, but again not vandalism. Do you actually know the difference between vandalism and good faith edits? Furthermore, are you actually seriously using the fact that another editor vandalised the page for your scattergun misuse of rollback against this ip? Adding "ratface" to the article would indeed merit a level 2 vandal warning, trying to fix errors added in the first place by you does not. Valenciano (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Bellezzasolo

Rollback and edit summaries

RFAR Ryulong, section Rollback states: The rollback tool allows administrators and rollbackers to quickly perform reverts. It should be used with caution and restraint, in part because it does not allow adding an explanation to the automatic edit summary. [emphasis added].

Rollback policy states: The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting. [emphasis added].

Biting Newcomers

WP:BITE states: Always explain reverts in the edit summary, and use plain English rather than cryptic abbreviations.. This ties in with the above point, rollback facilities that offer edit summaries are less bitey, if that facility is used.

Further to UninvitedCompany

UninvitedCompany, I assume the talk page removal you refer to is this - Talk:Animal bite, rather than the linked diff. Presented as evidence for the commitee's convenience. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Cipow

original reply to GS regarding rollbacks

I would like to add my original reply to GS as evidence. I apologise to begin with and hope I have done this correctly, as I'm still getting used to using talk pages on this site. Please feel free to edit and format correctly, if and where possible (if allowed). I have felt the need to add this as I have been referenced in this case already by others. My orginal reply best explains how I feel regarding the situation, I think it was obvious that GS did not check my edits before deciding to rollback over 40 of them and only using this as a example of why they were rolled back is a very weak explanation, from my point of view. I must admit after spending hours on this site, I was quite annoyed especially since the majority of them were referenced and GS's replies were not satisfactory or warranted regarding the rollbacks, in my opinion. For full transparency in the case, I submit the orginial reply.

"References were provided for the majority of changes, for example Ian Little. I used the official website of Whitehill Welfare F.C. but yet this was still reverted???

I feel only a minimum did not have references yet you have reverted most of my work. I will continue to update the SLFL, but if my hard work keeps getting reverted I feel I have no choice but to no longer contribute to this website.

All changes are 100% accurate, unfortunately there isn't a lot of sources as such on squads due to the nature of the league and moves happening often with websites not being updated by the clubs. It takes two mins on twitter to see a squad list or how a kit looks.

I cover the league as a job and just wanted to keep info up to date, if I can't then I won't. Simple as.

It's very simply - you need to provide reliable sources for every edit, and you need to use WP:EDITSUMMARIES to explain your edits. Doing that will avoid further reverts. Giant Snowman 08:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I went over every edit I made and checked. There was some on the player profiles which were not referenced, I counted maybe 4 out of 20-30 edits of mine you reverted.

I thought the actual squad reference to clubs website which I have referenced on every squad I've done would be suffice for the player also (if you bothered to check) i.e official site. Your reverts were completely unjust on the majority, in my opinion. Majority had reliable sources i.e club website.

Also one edit you reverted for Craig O'Reilly and some others was fixing it up as the club was not correctly linked via wikipage, you have clearly not checked the edits you have reverted.

Also submitting WP:EDITSUMMARIES to a squad list would be counterproductive, surely? As if a player is added to the official site i.e a reference already added, why would I need to describe it? You would just need to check the reference.

It's very simple - You saw one or two articles with no references and reverted 20 odd perfectly referenced articles."

Evidence presented by Legacypac

GiantSnowman abused rollback and the block button during this case

Completely cluelessly, GS rolled back and blocked an IP during the evidence phase [31] I'm not a football expert but the edits look sourced and correct to me. If any non-Admin used rollback like this they would have rollback revoked. Removal of the rollback script by GS was a hollow step because rollback is bundled with the Admin bit.

Premature closure of discussion and effects

Two Admins closed portions of the ANi discussion as described at [32]. The acceptance of the case demonstrates there were in fact legitimate issues raised at ANi worthy of examination, contrary to the closures. These two Admins took no action to warn or sanction GiantSnowman, did not open this case to ensure the conduct was examined properly, and went against emerging consensus. The closures could easily be interpreted as endorsing GiantSnowman's conduct, and appear to have emboldened GiantSnowman to carry on with more mass reverts and blocks after the closures as seen in other evidence and the ANi discussion incorporated into evidence by the linked scope statement.

Response to opinion on Football topic

An Arb asked about issues with football as a topic. Because of my AfC involvement I watch 36,000 pages across many topics. From what I see in editing patterns, Football is a "fan topic" like movies, video games, Hollywood celebs etc that attracts casual "fan" editors who may not follow policy perfectly. Football is not uniquely or even especially impacted by "fan editing" compared to other "fan topics". Therefore no special allowances that run against normal policy and practice are justified.

Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note; the above was added more than two days ago to the clerks noticeboard, where Legacypac must post their evidence for approval (don't ask, it's utterly unreasonable, but there we are). Since no action at all was taken about this, I have posted it here for them. Please lift the stupid restriction if this is the result of it. Fram (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Refusal to reopen ANi thread, threat of a block

When User:MrX requested a reopen of the GiantSnowman ANi thread from User:Bbb23 he was mislead about what GS agreed, told an ArbComm case was a waste of time, told by GS he felt harassed, and threatened with a block by another Admin. Arbs should read the whole thread for context [33]

Note; the above was added nearly a day ago to the clerks noticeboard, where Legacypac must post their evidence for approval (don't ask, it's utterly unreasonable, but there we are). Since no action at all was taken about this, I have posted it here for them. Please lift the stupid restriction if this is the result of it. Fram (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Evidence presented by UninvitedCompany

I had hoped to be able to refrain from participating here, but I want to be sure that the facts are presented clearly.

The initial dispute stems from GiantSnowman's automated revert of 416 good-faith edits by Veryproicelandic

I was the one who brought this matter to the attention of the community with this post at AN/I (diff).
The salient portion of GiantSnowman's contribution history showing the 416 reverts was included in my post. I repeat the link here for the committee's convenience. These reverts took place on December 4, 2018.
The only explanation GiantSnowman provided contemporaneous with this mass revert was the placement of a uw-vandalism3 template on Veryproicelandic's talk page in this edit (diff).
After examining a handful of the subject edits, it was easy for me to ascertain these important facts:
1. The edits Veryproicelandic made were made in good faith, at considerable effort, and over period of several days. It is difficult to present this with diffs. I refer the committee to Veryproicelandic's contribution history leading up to the reverts
2. Some of the edits were supported by sources. For example, this change is supported by the existing source listed in the article.
3. The reverts covered a wide range of topics and were not limited to Association football. Here are diffs showing reverts to good-faith edits to articles on: a chemical compound, a Belgian novelist, foreign affairs, and a parish in Portugal. Each of these edits by Veryproicelandic arguably improved each article, and there is no basis for reverting any of them, for reasons of sourcing or on any other grounds.
4. The reverts included removal of this Talk page post. There is no basis in policy for such a revert.

Upon investigation, prior examples were found

GS had previously made mass reverts with doubtful basis in policy, as follows. I had included this information in summary form in my initial AN/I post:

On November 21, 2018, GiantSnowman mass reverted 100 edits by an IP. These edits were all on the topic of Association Football, and while I know little about the topic, the edits appear to be in good faith, and included updates to the as-of date. No contemporaneous explanation was offered other than a uw-vandalism3 template
On November 13, 2018, GiantSnowman mass reverted over 300 edits by a group of related IPs, notably including reversion of the addition of new material with inline citations to a reliable source. While the source is in Arabic, Google Translate provides a sufficient translation to illustrate that the source corroborates the assertion in the article. This block of reverts also removed an attempt by one of the IPs to explain to GiantSnowman that the edits in question were properly sourced.

These problems are ongoing

Today, December 26, 2018, GiantSnowman has reverted, albeit manually and therefore somewhat more slowly, all 18 edits of this IP, and blocked the editor for 48 hours with an explanation of "Block evasion." Nowhere can I find an explanation of what block is being evaded. The IP's edits are not vandalism. All appear to have been in good faith, and some include addition of content with inline citations to reliable sources which appear to me to at least partially support the added material.

Observation presented by Iridescent

(Not so much 'evidence' as an observation, to add to Ymblanter's correct point above.)

While stats for top-end teams in the big European and South American leagues are easily verifiable, the lower leagues—particularly the lower leagues in some African and Asian countries where there isn't as much of a tradition of sports media—are much harder to verify; plus, football has a unique status as the only sport played at a professional level in almost every world culture, making the sourcing far more fragmented than other sports which tend to be specific to particular regions or cultures. As a consequence, lower-league association football articles have long been subject to massive and sustained disruption on Wikipedia.

This stems both from vandals who recognise it as a topic on which edits are likely to slip through unnoticed, and from paid editors and sporting agents trying to boost their clients' profiles by making them appear to be more experienced, and who generally make a large batch of minor but correct edits in the hope of the problem edit slipping through unnoticed. (To North Americans, who are used to the baseball, gridiron, hockey and college sports cultures in which every player's career is tracked from the outset, it can seem implausible just how disorganised football is, but players blagging their way onto teams by way of faking a prior career is a genuine issue. Ali Dia and Alessandro Zarrelli, who bullshitted their way into the English and Irish Premier Leagues respectively, are the most extreme examples, but for poorer clubs who don't have the scouting networks in place to confirm whether someone has genuinely played in the Moldovan Third Division before transferring to a regional league in Djibouti it's a genuine and ongoing problem. It's well documented that poorer professional football clubs even use the databases of football videogames, let alone sources like Wikipedia which at least purport to be an accurate reflection of player careers, as scouting tools.)

Consequently, people monitoring the biographies of currently-active lower-league footballers are particularly sceptical of IPs or relatively new accounts who suddenly start making large quantities of edits to career statistics. This doesn't excuse WP:BITE behaviour, but it does explain why WP:FOOTY's culture of assuming bad faith has developed as a response to genuine issues affecting the integrity of Wikipedia.

(While I'm here, I'll add this as 'evidence' so it's part of the record)
As of 4 January 2018, Wikipedia had 112,994 football biographies. (The full list isn't uploadable to Wikipedia as it's over the page size limit but I can email it to anyone who wants to verify the numbers.) The WMF's own figures show that as of November 2018 (the last month for which stats are available) English Wikipedia had 3395 active editors by the relatively loose "100 edits in the past 30 days" definition of "active".

Evidence presented by Dweller

Much of this stems from GS's interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:V

I've long known GiantSnowman and his work, partly because I have edited extensively in football-related topics. Please forgive me if what I'm about to say has already been covered, I've not exhaustively read all the pages and links.

GS, I greatly admire your commitment to quality, your devotion to Wikipedia and the sheer volume of your work here. But I think along the way, you've made two mistakes - you've lost sight of care for other Wikipedians and you have adopted an extreme position on your understanding of some core policies.

I think an old old old discussion from the early days of BLP illuminates the latter well. It took me a long time to find this, I hope it wasn't wasted.

In 2013, I spotted an edit made by GS to Mick Luckhurst. In it, he removed some unsourced claims that any BLP-savvy editor would agree should be removed (like the "sack dance" comment!). But I also thought there was other uncontroversial material that had been pruned that could have been left (fronting Channel 4's coverage, for example). So I dropped him a line at his user talk.

The ensuing discussion at my user talk is, I think illuminating, as to GS's approach to BLP:

Transcription to save clicking through

Unreferenced material on BLPs - contentious or not - should be challenged and (in my view) removed. Stub first, ask questions later. It's better to re-add later once reliable sources have been found, as opposed to hoping somebody locates sources to support the material that is already there. Giant Snowman 13:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate that that is your opinion, but I can't see support for that stance in policy. I've only seen that contentious material should be removed. Can you point me to the right place, please? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP. "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." Giant Snowman 18:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the same as saying "contentious material should be removed". It depends on your definition of "contentious" or "any material challenged" or worse "likely" to be challenged. Removing all unreferenced information in BLPs is slightly odd though, I've seen plenty of ^{[citation needed]} tags floating around in BLPs. Perhaps all BLPs should have every unreferenced sentence removed since they are "likely" to be challenged? A difficult situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps all BLPs should have every unreferenced sentence removed since they are "likely" to be challenged?" - my sentiments exactly. We cannot be too careful with unreferenced material, especially with BLPs. Tagging something with ^{[citation needed]} does actual little to improve the encyclopedia and many remain tagged for years. I removed one a few years ago that was first added back in 2007! Giant Snowman 18:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree more with the idea that all unsourced information in BLPs should be removed on sight. The policy makes it clear that it's dealing with material that is contentious and/or likely to be challenged. That is not everything. You may be unhappy that this leaves a subjective decision to be made on each and every statement, but Wikipedia's policies frequently rely on subjective decisions being made. If you disagree with the policy, feel free to initiate a discussion about it at the talk page, but you don't have a policy-based justification for removing everything unsourced from a BLP because someone might challenge it. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, everything is likely to be challenged - hence the numerous edit wars that plague en.wiki on a daily basis. Your are seriously under-estimating the harm that BLPs can do, and the need to be extra-strict with them. What I am removing is, for all intents and purposes, unverified (and potentially incorrect) information agbout living people, and I am flabbergasted that you have any kind of issue with that. Giant Snowman 13:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why the BLP policy doesn't say "Any material must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation." What is the relevance of "challenged or likely to be challenged" and the earlier usage of "contentious" in the policy? --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not perfect, and neither is its policies. Giant Snowman 14:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This evidence is presented not in an effort to push for a punitive response, but because I think the answer should be clarification to GS that his interpretation is flawed. Or perhaps I've got it wrong and GS was right all along.

In any case, GS, please be kinder to new editors. They are rare and precious.

That's all. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think issues around mis/use of rollback as opposed to undo are so minor and second rate compared to the big stuff (BITE/BLP/wholesale reversion/blanking) they should be disregarded. It's a technicality, albeit one we take reasonably seriously. Use of one vs the other deprives the encyclopedia of neither content nor users. The issues I'd rather the Arbs concentrate on impact on both. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Daz's comment below, encouraged me to reread WP:BURDEN. I think GS is a huge advocate of the first two paragraphs. Less so of the later content, which includes this sage admonition: "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Bbb23

Response to AGK

AGK added me as a party to the case, saying:

When the ANI review was in its early stages, and after an earlier closure, Bbb23 closed the thread with a comment asserting that no concerns existed and no action may follow.

GS's response is satisfactory. There is no reason that he cannot use mass rollback for socking and vandalism. No administrative action is going to be taken here.

Did this obstruct review of an administrator and prevent the community from dealing with the concerns about GiantSnowman? Was there an attempt at supervoting?

I closed the ANI thread because I believed that GS's commments mooted the discussion. In hindsight, I think I was wrong and that I had failed to notice a qualifier to what I thought was a categorical promise by GS.

As long as I'm here, AFAIK, there are only two ways to prevent an admin from using rollback: a desysop or a topic ban. The latter, as in all bans, would be enforceable by blocks. I can't speak for other admins, but if I were topic-banned, I would be very afraid of accidentally rolling back another's edits because I often rollback quickly (comes with years of experience).

Finally, the rollback privilege is anachronistic. With the advent of Twinkle, which anyone can use, it has become almost meaningless. The Committee cannot directly change policy, but it can take into account the reality of the rollback privilege. There is disagreement of what constitutes a rollback. I and many others believe that if an editor reverts edits with an explanation, it should not be considered a rollback. Policy and the technical workings of the system should be changed to adapt them to reality (that pesky word again). I can't speak for whether this is even possible technically, but, regardless, I personally have no inclination to launch such a quixotic task.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by MrX

Discussions seeking to address admin conduct was closed multiple times

Discussion opened by UninvitedCompany: 23:58 December 4, 2018 [34]
Discussion closed by Ymblanter (after he commented in it a subsection of the discussion that he did not close.): 13:11 December 5, 2018 [35] "Looks like GS has learned his lesson, and there is no point of keeping this open any longer. If anybody has specific suggestions please open a new subsection below (or write in the existing subsection, which I leave open."

(Added part highlighted in green based on Ymblanter's response.) - 19:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Closing the discussion served no positive purpose. Just prior to the closing, I asked GiantSnowman if he would voluntarily stop using mass rollback and to carefully check each edit before applying standard rollback from now on. (adding, "In other words, stop using rollback to simply revert edits that you personally disagree with.")[36] His response was defensive: "For the umpteenth time, I've already said I will". He also misconstrued what I was asking. I said: "edits that you personally disagree with" he responded to the strawman: 'edits I don't like' (including the quotes).[37] I was about to seek clarification from GiantSnowman when Ymblanter closed the discussion.

December 5, 2018 12:31: I opened a subsection called GiantSnowman's voluntary restriction with the purpose of clarifying GiantSnowman's ambiguous statement about whether he would stop using mass rollback and be more careful about using standard rollback.[38] GiantSnowman clarified that he would continue to use mass rollback against clear vandalism/socks etc. but be far more careful about using it in greyer areas, contradicting his prior statement "For the umpteenth time, I've already said I will".[39]

December 5, 2018 14:58: Bbb23 closed the subsection that I had opened and subsection that Ymblanter had opened, with the reason "GS's response is satisfactory. There is no reason that he cannot use mass rollback for socking and vandalism. No administrative action is going to be taken here."[40]

On Bbb23's talk page, I objected to the discussion being closed on the grounds that "Serious concerns about GiantSnowman use of mass rollback have been raised and have not been adequately resolved." I requested that Bbb23 re-open the discussion.[41] Bbb23 seemed to agree with part of my reasoning, but did not re-open the discussion as I had requested.[42]

Bbb23 acknowledged that he "had failed to notice a qualifier to what I thought was a categorical promise by GS.", after he was added to this case [43]

Swarm Dissented to Bbb23's closing statement.[44]

December 12, 2018 16:48: Part of the ensuing discussion was closed by Bellezzasolo. [45]
December 16, 2018 12:22: Swarm closed the entire discussion.[46]

Several administrators acted in good faith to resolve the issue outside of arbitration, in accordance with WP:ADMINACCT and WP:TOOLMISUSE

UninvitedCompany: [47][48]
Fram: [49][50][51][52][53][54]
Fish and karate: [55][56][57]

My effort to participate in the discussion was silenced by an admin who closed a discussion; another who threatened to block me and who accused me of harassment and hounding; and another who mocked me

Closed discussion: evidence already posted above.
Threat and aspersions by Ivanvector: [58][59][60][61][62] He followed me first to Bbb23's talk page and later engaged with me ANI, falsely accusing me of "chasing", "harassment", and "hounding" of GiantSnowman, and characterizing my participation as "not trying to address the issue". Regarding this [63] comment by me, it indeed appears demanding, but that is because, in my haste, I omitted the word "should". (...you consult with others otherwise.) A review of my thousands of other comments on Wikipedia will reveal that I don't intentionally phrase my comments that way. Although I don't attribute malice to Ivanvector's comments, they should be read carefully because they convey a tone the reinforces the perception that admins are treated differently that editors. For example, "If you want to bring this to Arbcom to pursue having GiantSnowman's admin permissions removed then do so, but I think you know how that's going to go."
Dismissive mocking by Drmies: [64][65]

This type of conduct tends to disenfranchise regular editors by subverting their ability to pursue WP:ADMINACCT outside of arbitration. Threats, aspersions, and mocking have a chilling effect on collaborative participation in the governance of the project.

Evidence presented by Bring back Daz Sampson

Concur this stems from GS's interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:V

Dweller's remarks above sparked a flicker of recognition and I found this discussion from October 2013. Here we see the idiosyncratic/radical interpretation of WP:BLP which I think is at issue. Worryingly it seems that this inflexible, adversarial approach has continued unabated over the last five years or so. I'd go further than Dweller and say that unquestionably this approach can only have harmed the overall project. As others have pointed out, scores of potentially decent editors have been turned off. Sad to say that WP:Footy, in particular, would be a much better place without this aggressive brand of administration. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Alfie

I really didn't want this to be my first significant non-IP edit in about a year. Oh well.

I noticed this on the Evidence talkpage and I wanted to submit it for consideration as evidence, since it frustrated me immensely.

GiantSnowman continues to use Mass-Rollback Rollback whilst this case is in progress

Diff, straight from the horse's mouth. I'm not going to comment on whether this particular use of rollback was appropriate, but performing any mass-/rollback actions whilst "under the cloud" of an ArbCom case demonstrates a shocking lack of self-awareness. This exchange disappointed me also.

Copied from my comments on the evidence talk page:

Worth noting that I do completely understand [that] GS is free to utilise the permissions they have. Actively preventing GS from using rollback would be punitive, and we don't hand out punitive restrictions (in general). However, GS is also free not to. It appears suspect (and potentially demonstrates bad judgement - that's up to the Arbs) that GS feels comfortable using rollback in exactly the areas that bought them to ArbCom in the first place, but also appears to feel the need to premptiviely justify it here. I apologise for not being able to demonstrate anything more objective than "it looks bad", but... exactly that. It rubs me the wrong way. Certainly if multiple people questioned my use of a permission enough to warrant a case at ArbCom, I would at least think twice and refrain from using it at least for the duration of the case, although I hope I'd be able to resolve that difference way before it reached AC. It's certainly not "Business as usual".

Apology

Apologies, GiantSnowman; I misspoke by saying "Mass"-rollback writing this in a hurry. Nonetheless, my comments are still relevant.

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

[1] See also WP:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong#Rollback.

[1]